Some sites promoting 9/11 hoaxes that supposedly expose official complicity
are well-meaning efforts. The most effective covert operations are
when the plotters are able to get outside forces (in this case, some of the
9/11 skeptics) to do their work for them without realizing that they are helping
the covert operation.

It seems that some people have let the "no plane" meme travel for
SO long that to backtrack on this point would be very difficult. Those who have
staked their credibility in public about this find it hard to admit they were
fooled.

The "no Boeing at the Pentagon" theories became the most prominent
claim from the "9/11 truth movment" in 2004 and 2005 -- due to a combination
of flashy presentations making this claim that have led to media attacks that
focus almost exclusively on this claim (while ignoring others with solid evidence).
This effort to promote - and discredit - the "no plane" claim came
during a tightly contested Presidential election campaign that risked having
9/11 issues disrupt the outcome. It also increased in intensity as the 9/11
skeptics increased their visibility through the Deception Dollar campaign, the
March 2004 and May 2004 International Inquiries into 9/11 and other outreach
efforts that reached significant percentages of the political opposition (in
one form or another).

How united is the loose conglomeration roughly called the "9/11
truth movement?" There aren't any objective criteria required for claiming
participation in it. There aren't any tests that one must pass in order to become
a member. It is technically easy and inexpensive for anyone to create a website
to say anything -- and there are many ways to mix real information with untruths
in order to create the illusion of authenticity.

While nearly everyone who is a skeptic about the events of 9/11 is united
in thinking that there was a deliberate effort by the Bush administration to
allow it to happen, that is the main point of unity. Rigorous Intuition, written
by Canadian author Jeff Wells, calls this claim "the flying wedge,"
since it is one of the most divisive issues among activists seeking to shift
public consciousness about the "event that changed the world."

There are a variety of perspectives on the degree of technical assistance
provided by the Bush regime to facilitate the attacks, some with considerable
evidence, others without documentation. Some of this disagreement is among people
with good intention, but not everyone uses the same standards to prove their
claims.

It would be an oversimplification to judge "9/11 truth" advocates
for or against this theory by their support for other claims regarding 9/11.
But looking at other issues, good and bad, surrounding 9/11 truth activism does
reveal patterns.

Those who don't buy the "no plane" claims are generally those
who are familiar with the geography of the Washington, D.C. area, understand Peak
Oil was a motivation, focus on the war
games, and have shown an ability to engage in critical thinking to differentiate
real research from crap research.

There are some sincere people who talk about war games and still believe "no
plane," but those folks are generally not familiar with the geography of
Arlington, and they absolutely do not talk about the 90 foot wide impact
hole (caused by the engines and the bulky parts of the wings), the fact
that hundreds of people saw the plane, or the motivation to keep the 9/11 skeptics divided and
discredited.

It is ironic that the no plane promoters urge people to ignore the hundreds of eyewitnesses to the crash of Flight 77 even while recommending that alleged eyewitness
testimonies that the Twin Towers were supposedly demolished with explosives.

nearly all reject the "no Boeing"
theories, especially those who are not far removed from
knowing eyewitnesses. The various "no plane / no Boeing" theories
reflect a lack of knowledge of the northern Virginia area -- it is hard
to imagine that anyone who has been stuck in traffic on the nearby roads
during morning rush hour (and seen the incredible flood of cars) would
believe that a missile or small plane somehow was mistaken for a large
Boeing 757. It is also illogical to assume that the perpetrators would
have risked flying something other than Flight 77 over this densely populated
area (since a single photo would have exposed the plot).

In January 2006, 911truth.org published a claim that someone on the Washington
Metro heard other passengers exclaiming that they had seen the Pentagon
Missile while waiting for a train at the Pentagon Metro station -- which
is underground (and therefore a plane or missile or anything else would
not be visible in the subway station). Anyone familiar with this subway
system would not have published this claim since it is obviously false.

many, if not most reject the "no Boeing" theories
Some sincere 9/11 truth activists who support the work of Mike Ruppert
and other credible writers on the war games issues still support the "no
Boeing" theories.

9/11 skeptics who discuss Peak
Oil as a motivation for Bush administration decision to allow the
attacks

many, if not most, reject or ignore the "no Boeing"
theories
there are some who accept Peak Oil and also think "no plane"
is real
there are a few who deny Peak Oil but also reject the "no Boeing"
claims. These include those who don't think Peak Oil will be
catastrophic due to the extistence of renewable energy, biofuels and suppressed
energy technologies, and others who reject Peak Oil due to the pedigree
of some of the experts in the field (some have oil industry connections).

ultra-fringe
claims

Moon landing was a hoax

There are a few 9/11 "truth" activists who promote the idea
that the 1969 Moon landing did not happen.
An excellent deconstruction of this nonsense is at badastronomy.com

It is curious that the ultra-right-wing Fox TV aired "Conspiracy
Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?" a show in February 2001 supposedly
boosting the interest in this claim -- which is in turn used by the media
to show how kooky people who believe in conspiracies supposedly are. Is
this a serious effort to report on kooky ideas, or a fake show to promote
the idea that "conspiracy theorists" really believe this stuff.

A few voices claiming to support "9/11 truth"
also promote Holocaust Denial. The distortion, lies and omissions of Holocaust
Denial promoters is psychologically similar to the misinformation techniques
of the no plane hoaxes (ignoring eyewitnesses, ignoring physical evidence, ignoring common sense and basic logic).

Sometimes you can tell a conspiracy by the high grade of disinformation that accrues about it, including the number and quality of shadowy "renegade insiders" eager to step up, speak out and muddy the waters.

The Bush era whistleblowers who worked for G.
W. Bush promote the "no plane" hoaxes:

Fred Burks, former Presidential interpretor, runs wanttoknow.info website. Received widespread coverage of his decision to quit the State
Department during the Bush-Kerry election campaign. Want To Know promotes
the "no plane hit Pentagon" hoax, promotes the "Pentagon
Strike" and "Loose Change" hoax films. Perhaps most disturbing
is Want to Know's simultaneous promotion of Holocaust denial websites
as credible sources (a subtle form of discrediting 9/11 truth) while promoting
ersatz motivational websites ("moment of love: every person in the
world has a heart," "moment of love," "inspiring community").

Morgan Reynolds, economist for the Labor Department
during GWB's first term. Reynolds promotes
"no planes" for all four 9/11 crashes. While there are many
sincere skeptics on 9/11 issues who still believe there is validity (or
uncertainty) regarding the claims that Flight 77 supposedly did not hit
the Pentagon, virtually no one believes the claims of "smaller planes
hit WTC" and "no plane crashed in Pennsylvania." One hopes
that a relatively senior member of the Bush administration would do their
homework before making public pronouncements, if they are sincere in their
statements.

[Mr. Shayler is an alleged whistleblower from British "intelligence" - the MI-5 - who has become a primary spokesperson for 9/11 truth in Britain. He promotes the "no planes anywhere" hoaxes, holograms used to mask missiles and even now proclaims that he is the Messiah. Is is crazy, or the British version of COINTELPRO?]

I need to be more vigilant when mentioning alleged 9/11 "truth" researchers.
This area of inquiry has more lunatics, plants, cranks and freaks associated
with it than the UFO community.
-- Kevin Flaherty, Cryptogon.comhttp://cryptogon.com/2005_03_13_blogarchive.html#111111555338323748
Jane Christensen: Holocaust Denial and 9/11 Investigation - March 17, 2005

Thierry Meyssan publishes a book that focuses on no-757, and so gets
the ball rolling - in the wrong direction.

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, "accidentally" says
that the object that hit the Pentagon was a missile.

Phil Jayhan start propagating no-757.

Dave vonKleist publishes the most flawed widespread 9/11 video, In Plane
Site. Even the name is stupid. (On the DVD cover there's a photo that had
been used earlier to debunk one of the baseless claims mentioned in the
film, a fact that is rather interesting.)

Karl Schwarz pulls his bogus 'it was an A3 Skywarrior' theory out of
thin air.

It would be most surprising if nobody on that list was a disinfo agent.

note: this is relatively accurate, although Rumsfeld made his "missile"
statement before Meyssan's book - but the same week that Meyssan first started up his "no plane" website. There are others who helped usher
along the missile meme -
see The Complete "No
Planes on 9/11" Timeline for details.

Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 07:49 AM by bronco2121
i know it has become unpopular (for some reason) on DU to criticize the new
direction of the... well, i wouldn't call it the '9/11 truth movement' anymore
- it's now more like the 'big tent 9/11 anything-coulda-happened movement'.
so if you're the kind whose eyes might bleed if you read anything critical of
either the 'scholars for 9/11 truth' or the happy shiny music video known as
'loose change'... DO NOT view these URLs:http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/index.htmlhttp://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1787340.php
broncoflight77.info

Sunday, November 12, 2006
DID YOU HEAR? For some people, being fooled is just plain fun
By Rachel Leibrock
SACRAMENTO BEE
What's your favorite hoax?

There's a sucker born every minute - or so the saying goes. But sometimes
being a sucker is fun, or, at the very least, offers a revealing glimpse into
who we as a society are today. ....

The Blair Witch Project
• The story: This 1999 horror flick initially was presented as a documentary.
The low-budget film claimed to chronicle the story of three filmmakers who,
in 1994, became lost in a forest while shooting a documentary about the subject
of a local legend, the Blair Witch.
• Sticking to it? The line between truth and fiction became
blurred as the film's promotional Web site - and a corresponding
Sci-Fi Channel "documentary," Curse of the Blair Witch - covered
the story as if it were real, ushering in a wave of what would become known
as viral marketing. "Blair Witch revealed the potential of the
Internet," Boese says.
• File under: "Entertainment, harmless." The Blair Witch Project
grossed more than $160 million in the United States.
• Won't get fooled again? "As long as people are entertained,
they don't care if they're being fooled or having a joke played on them," Boese says. "Such (hoaxes) are effective if they're funny or
scary or creepy, and they get people to interact in new ways." [emphases added]

An Internet sock puppet is an additional account created by an existing
member of an Internet community. This account allows them to pose as a completely
different user, sometimes to manufacture the illusion of support in a vote
or argument. Other reasons include a desire to support or vote on an issue
coupled with a desire to have one's "main" account stay away from
the issue. This behaviour is sometimes seen as being dishonest by online communities
and as a result these individuals are often labeled as trolls. This is often
done on sites like eBay in order to bid on one's own auctions, although eBay
forbids the practice.
Another type of sock puppet is sometimes referred to as a “straw man
sock puppet.” They are created by users with one point of view, but
act as though they have an opposing point of view, in order to make that point
of view look bad. They will often make poor arguments which their “opponents”
can then easily refute. This can allow them to essentially make straw man
arguments. Such sock puppets thus become a personification of the straw man
argument which their creators argue against. They often act unintelligent
or uninformed, and may behave in an overtly bigoted manner. The effect is
often to obfuscate the debate and prevent a serious discussion of the arguments
from each side. Suspicion of such sock puppets is often harder to verify though,
as there are often people who naturally behave in such a manner with the same
effects.

911blimp.net and users.adelphia.net/~earthwatch/

promoted by the same internet personas, seem to be the same operation - a site
that echoes the "webfairy" claim that a plane did not hit the WTC.

It mixes on its "links" sites with a very careful approach to the
evidence with sites that are careless in their conclusions

911blogger.com

911blogger apparently started up in mid-spring 2005, and immediately got attention
for copying a video of David Ray Griffin's lecture in Madison, Wisconsin (which
was broadcast on the C-Span network). 911blogger got instant credibility from
many sources for this video link, and emails were soon flying across the internet
promoting this site as a place to visit for excellent videos.

911blogger features prominent links to WingTV (right-wing promoters and personal
attacks of 9/11 researchers Michael Ruppert and Jim Hoffman), the DVDs 'In
Plane Site' and 'Loose Change,' which promote
the memes of 'No Commercial Jets,' not only at the Pentagon but also at the WTC!

http://mparent7777.blog-city.com/read/1247232.htm
The 9/11 Truth Movement wouldn't even have the David Ray Griffin video had
it not been for him. Try focusing on unity, and not who is disinfo and who
isn't. Pointing out who is disinformation is disinformation.

It's a nice touch that the defender of their tactic suggests that 9/11 skeptics
should focus on unity (generally a good idea) even
though the 911blogger site is promoting fake claims that many 9/11 skeptics
are united in thinking are not true.

from a friend of 911blogger:

I have been doing this a VERY long time. One of the things I've learned
is that it's more important to focus on the truth, rather than who's right,
and who's wrong. The fact of the matter is, there is MORE than enough evidence
to reopen the investigation. As a movement, THAT'S what we should be focusing
on.
If you make a conscious effort to point out who's "disinfo", then
the people who come across your site that may have visited those previous
sites, may question the movement in its' entirety, and that's not what we
want to happen.
Since my site is affiliated with www.911blogger.com, I would appreciate it
if you would take them off of your list. I know the owner, and I KNOW that
he's not disinfo. He hasn't been doing this for a very long time, so he's
not aware of who's right, and who's wrong. He collects all 9/11 information,
and posts it on his site, regardless of where it comes from.

This vacuum cleaner approach is not the same as carefully differentiating
the hoaxes from the best information, it is not journalism.

911closeup.com

A site in praise of the webfairy hologram
theory maintained by Australian Gerard Holmgren. Holmgren makes much of the
alleged fact that a government database didn't show the hijacked flights as
completed flights -- so therefore, the planes didn't exist. The fact that a
database might be inaccurate does not determine the nature of external reality,
at least to those familiar with standards of forensic evidence. An obvious rebuttal
to Holmgren's assertion is that since the planes didn't complete their flights,
it might not have been appropriate to include them in a database of completed
flights. Why would someone who claims to be motivated to expose official US
government complicity in 9/11 make such shoddy claims? Is this explainable by
an incompetence theory, or is it deliberately designed to discredit?

Holmgren's analysis of the Pentagon plane crash is circulated widely across
the internet as supposed evidence for the no plane claim, but it makes serious
distortions to the facts (the physical evidence and the eyewitnesses confirm
that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon). Writing about events on the other side
of the planet, in a place you have never visited, risks serious geographic errors.

Gerard Holmgren's brother David Holmgren is one of the co-founders
of the Permaculture concept. David Holmgren's book Permaculture: Principles
and Pathways Beyond Sustainability is critically important material for solutions
to our global predicament at the end of cheap oil. This book also references
Mike Ruppert's From the Wilderness website as an excellent reference for understanding
the resource conflicts marketed as the War on Terror. David Holmgren's website
is www.holmgren.com.au and it is much more important than anything from those shouting "no planes."

911hoax.com

A site in praise of the webfairy hologram
theory from Baltimore activist Scott Loughrey.

911forthetruth.com

The website of attorney Phil Berg, former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania,
who rose to prominence in the 9/11 truth movement representing 9/11 widow Ellen
Mariani's RICO lawsuit against Bush and others. After she withdrew from the
suit, Mr Berg filed a new RICO suit on behalf of Willie Rodriguez, an employee
at the WTC who survived the attacks. This RICO (Racketeering and Influence Corrupt
Organizations) claim is perhaps the most problematic of any of the suits filed
seeking 9/11 truths.

In this critique of the complaint we point out some of the flaws with this
lawsuit, which include:

The complaint goes even further than Stanley Hilton's in its kitchen-sink
approach of naming numerous defendants and numerous and wide-ranging allegations
of criminality. This approach is diametrically opposed to the one that would
appear to have the best chances of success: a narrow focus on the most provable
charges against a few individuals.

The complaint fails to apply the smell test to the allegations it lists,
and includes thoroughly debunked and patently nonsensical claims among the
valid ones. Interestingly, while it fails to cite any 9/11 skeptics' websites
or books that provide substantial evidence of insider inolvement, it trumpets
the hoax-promoting site LetsRoll911.org.

The complaint is poorly organized and full of syntactic and structural
errors, making it difficult to read and summarize. (In our critique, which
reproduces the original complaint, we have attempted to clean up the structure
in order to help the reader.)

Since receiving intense criticism of the fake claims in this RICO suit from
9/11 truth activists who previously had supported the Mariani v. Bush suit,
Berg has promised to remove the "missiles fired at WTC and Pentagon"
hoaxes. However, it is unlikely that all of the problems in this suit will be
rectified, and even if they are, the question must be asked why a very professional
attorney who had been one of the top lawyers for one of the country's larger
states would file such as a sloppy lawsuit that could easily be thrown out of
court for its obviously fake claims inserted into the middle of the complaint.

Whether this new suit is legal malpractice or a deceitful effort to have the
case dismissed "with prejudice" (which would prevent others from filing
the same claims), this case is worth ignoring and hopefully will be withdrawn.

The film "9/11: In Plane Site" is a slick production that includes
most of the red herrings and hoaxes that have distracted the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Detailed reviews are at www.oilempire.us/inplanesite.html

This film, released a few months before the 2004 Presidential Election,
is a conglomeration of most of the red herrings surrounding the 9/11 truth movement.
Nearly every piece of "evidence" in it is wrong, even if the conclusion
("inside job") is correct. "Plane Site" includes hoaxes,
misinterpreted evidence, logical leaps unsupported by evidence, and some footage
that is almost certainly completely fraudulent. The video clips that can be
proven to be authentic are merely those plagiarized from other films, such as
the WTC 7 collapse, the firefighter sequence, and the footage from Oklahoma
City.

In Plane Site only promotes the "Letsroll911" website (the
loudest promoter of the "pod" claim), which
means that "In Plane Site" is probably a "Webfairy"
production (the video operation that made "new" videos of 9/11 years
after the fact).

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of this fake film is that the cover
graphic shows the same photo of a Boeing 757 that was posted to the "911truthalliance"
list in May 2004 pointing out that the "pod" was merely an illusion.

The manufacturers of "Plane Site"
put a photo showing the "pod" is a fake claim on the cover of the
DVD -- a bad joke "hidden in plain sight.

911mysteries.com

A site promoted in July 2005 for an event in Los Angeles with the producer
of a film called "Loose Change" (a regurgitation of the In Plane Site
hoaxes) and William Rodriguez, whose RICO suit against George W. Bush, et al, promotes the fake Plane Site claims. The only
contact provided to reach this site is a pseudonymous email account and a telephone
number in northern Virginia. The website states:

Many thanks to Director Paul Koslo of The Met Theatre for his generous
and inspired co-hosting of "9/11 Mysteries," to Managing Editor
Chris Petherick of American Free Press for its sponsorship, and to Producer
Christine Blosdale of KPFK 90.7 Los Angeles for her dedicated promotion of
this event

It is odd that left-wing KPFK / Pacifica Radio would promote an event from
American Free Press, which works with KKK leader David Duke and promotes Holocaust
Denial.

The mysteries website states that The show goes to Hollywood! - but
it seems likely that someone IN Hollywood is crafting these science fiction
stories.

An effort that promotes some of the best and worst books and films about 9/11. The owner of that site stated
that oilempire.us was one of the best truth sites until it became more vocal
in pointing out how the "no plane hit Pentagon" hoax was being used
to discredit and distract from the real evidence.

911skeptics.blogspot.com

A gossip column supposedly covering the 9/11 Truth Movement, yet it
spends as much energy covering the red herrings and the "pod people"
sites as the real efforts of those doing work to uncover verifiable evidence
and do productive political organizing. This site claims that people
who deny the reality of finite oil supplies are "progressive oil researchers" (even though the people referenced know little, if anything about petroleum
geology, agriculture, energy, or other related topics), and those who point
out that the "pod" claims are bogus are conducting
a "smear campaign against 9/11 scientists." It's working
hard to promote strange attacks on hard working volunteers, to consider evidence-less
theories as somehow equal to carefully documented material, and to promote a
variety of snide insults masquerading as a news report. One of its favorite
tactics is to pretend that there's a big split among 9/11 skeptics whether 9/11
was allowed to happen or engineered by the
Bush / Cheney regime, but the real split is between those seeking to be accurate
in their analyses, and those promoting disproved material such as the "pod
plane" silliness.

The author of this "blog" apparently co-created the so-called 9/11
Science and Justice Alliance, which is apparently a centralized clearinghouse
for 9/11 conspiracy red herrings. This alleged "alliance" created
a flyer on 9/11/2004 (archived at cosmicpenguin.org and 911review.org, two sites
promoting the "no Pentagon plane" and "pod" hoaxes) that
is one of the least readable contributions toward 9/11 skepticism.

One positive contribution from this site:

In Plane Site
The ongoing success of Dave v. Kleist's video (which received most
of his sources from Phil Jayhan's letsroll911.org)

It's useful to learn that the "planesite"
film is largely based on the "letsroll" site, which in turn had much
of its work performed by the discredited "webfairy"
video site. In Plane Site = Let's Roll 911 = The Webfairy

Some of the bogus 9/11 websites, if you trace back their intellectual framework,
and in some cases, their "mirror" sites, are probable candidates for
being part of the "webfairy" site (an effort that started by promoting
the ludicrous idea that the first 9/11 plane was really a missile masked by
a King Kong sized hologram). These "webfairy" type websites proliferated
and multiplied (with increasing numbers of allied website domains) through the
2004 election season, which was somewhat effective at dampening down the political
impact of the 9/11 truth movement. Their "in plane site" production
is much more slick and sophisticated than the easily dismissed "webfairy"
site.

One of the earliest 9/11 sites, it has also dramatically declined in quality
since its early days (after it established its bona fides). It was one of the
first sites to include some of the evidence for remote control technology on
9/11, and has a good article about the Reichstag
Fire posted.

Unfortunately, 911strike, published by an electronics engineer named Jerry
Russell, promotes the pod people campaign, although without bothering to cite
any actual evidence for these claims (he merely recycles mention of the various pod people sites, including the phony amics21 site listed
above). It is interesting that nearly all of the 9/11 enthusiasts who proclaim
support for this fiction are male, and it is likely that they are all people
whose enthusiasm gets in the way of their fact checking abilities. It is definitely
a male ego problem when people get very self righteous about their points of
view, and are unable to admit error. (Russell claims to be a scientist, yet
the supporters of the "pod plane" myth strenuously
refuse any peer review.)

911strike also engages in "snitch jacketing" - the false accusation
that someone is an agent provocateur. Mr. Russell makes evidence-less claims
that Michael Ruppert (fromthewilderness.com) is an agent, which is a very disruptive
tactic used to wreck social movements. This sort of paranoia has disrupted countless organizations.

Mr. Russell tried to disrupt the International
Inquiry into 9/11 in San Francisco in March 2004, threatening to sue the
organizers for daring to put Michael Ruppert on the stage. Considering
that Ruppert has done more work to expose 9/11 than probably any other investigator,
it was reasonable to expect him to appear at the conference. Worse, Mr. Russell
formerly had great praise for Mike's work, but perhaps this is a case of jealousy
(Mike is getting more attention than he is). Whatever the ultimate cause(s),
this sort of dysfunction is extremely toxic to effective organizing. (The
threats to file a lawsuit against a conference that someone else was organizing
is a form of misusing the judicial system to harass people, which is illegal
and ridiculous.)

911strike's support for the pod people and his snitch-jacket accusations pale
in comparison with his outrageous, racist nonsense about the Holocaust. 911strike
links to neo-Nazi pseudo historians who claim that the Jews all emgrated from
Poland to behind the German/Russian lines at the start of World War Two, so
the Holocaust was greatly exaggerated by "the Jews" in order to justify
their land grab in Palestine. This is so disgusting it probably doesn't need
much of a refutation, but it is sad to see anyone so monstrously wrong about
their understanding of history. See www.oilempire.us/holocaust.html for factual material on the Holocaust, one of the greatest crimes of human history.
Linking Holocaust denial and 9/11 serves the interests of the "inside job"
perpetrators, since this connection serves to alienate nearly everyone from
looking at the actual evidence for 9/11 complicity. So who benefits
from calling Mike Ruppert a CIA agent, fellow writers "paranoid" for
pointing out the pod is fiction, and that Holocaust revisionism is legitimate
inquiry? It certainly isn't the 9/11 truth movement.

911truthla.us

Created by Los Angeles resident Lynn Pentz, this site promotes
the standard mix of real evidence and disinformation. Most notable for its sponsorship
of showings of In Plane Site, Loose Change (a
"sequel" to Plane Site), and two bizarre "Grand Jury" events
that included several writers promoting numerous fake claims. Her October 2004
"Grand Jury" had no effort to evaluate the quality of alleged evidence,
and as a result, two of the presenters -- Christopher Bollyn of American Free
Press, and Navy employee Barbara Honegger -- mostly promoted hoaxes. Mr. Bollyn's
presentation focused on the fake claims (no planes, etc), and Ms. Honegger claimed
that Richard Reid (the "shoe bomber") was really Osama, a position
that is either extremely incompetent or a deliberate effort to promote disinformation.
One of the presenters at the alleged "Grand Jury" had to spend much
of his alloted time refuting the nonsense that was being introduced, and fortunately
was able to prevent the alleged Jurists from signing on to the fake claims.

americanfreepress.net
/ barnesreview.org

The "American Free Press" is an ultra-right-wing newspaper that also
publishes the "Barnes Review," a neo-Nazi holocaust
denial publication and website that has praised Hitler as worthy
of the Nobel Peace Prize and sells a variety of obnoxious books that pretend
the Holocaust did not happen. The so-called AFP has created a number of hoaxes
(the "no plane crash in Pennsylvania" claim, possibly the "Building
6 explosion" hoax) and has been promoting others, such as "no plane
crash at the Pentagon."

AFP also works closely with KKK leader David Duke (by their own admission).
Barnes is named after a relatively prominent supporter of Holocaust denial.

www.barnesreview.org/Nobel_Prize/nobel_prize.html Barnes Review says Hitler
deserved the Nobel Peace Prize (this page does not seem to be on their website
anymore - perhaps it is not the publicity that they want?)

A site that is long on invective toward nearly everyone who is organizing to
expose 9/11, and short on evidence and articles that explain the cover-ups.
Perhaps it is merely jealousy, but it is a really petty site that distracts
in its gossip-mongering. One creepy article is called "The Creepy Sides
of the 911 Truth Movement" -- relentlessly attacking people who work hard
for no pay. The author tried to convince the webmaster of this website in March
2004 that hard working volunteers for 9/11 Visibility were really government
agents (without even the slightest evidence for the accusation) and that petroleum
was not really a finite material and therefore to talk about Peak Oil was to
be a shill of the oil companies. However, the "Angie" person showed
herself to be remarkably unfamiliar with energy issues, the use of oil in agriculture,
the interrelationships of energy, ecology and economy. It is certainly true
that there are some "creepy" people infiltrating the 9/11 exposure
efforts, but snotty, jealous commentaries that contribute very little to the
collective sum of human understanding aren't likely to teach people how to differentiate
writing that are carefully constructed from those that are likely disinformation
or merely incompetent. Perhaps her inability to recognize the reality of Peak
Oil is rooted in a denial that is very convenient to rely upon while living
in New York City, a metropolis totally dependent on massive amounts of energy
to transport its food over very long distances. In fact, it is hard to find
anyone who the author respects -- it is basically a rant that attacks nearly
everyone whose efforts seem to get some public support. Worse, it obfuscates
on critical points, in particular claiming that the issue of the "wargames"
is merely propaganda being "sold" (but refuses to deal with the facts).

arcticbeacon.com

a website publishing 9/11 articles by Greg Syzmanski

Syzmanski is typically published by American
Free Press. Here's how Syzmanski's website describes AFP:

"American Free Press The grandfather of all alternative newspapers.
This insightful publication prints news you can't get from the mainstream,
corporate-driven media. Take a look and buy a subscription."

Syzmanski's associated website, Arctic Beacon, states that:

"Accordingly, our intended course is formatted in a monthly, highly
colorful news magazine covering but not limited to the following topics .
. .
Government Secrets and Cover-ups;
Religious and Spiritual Phenomena;
Unpopular Science;
Suppressed Health Alternatives;
Legal/ Social Injustice and
Environmental Protection
and
Alien Presence on Earth and
UFO Phenomena."
www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/arcticbeacon.html

So you can see that what's going on here, once again - sandwich in typical
left causes (environment, alternative health, legal/social injustice) with UFOs
and even, 'Alien Presence on Earth,' worse than just UFOs.
Here's another good one in there:

"If you think the Republic is worth saving, then donate to Public Domain
Publishing . . . So join us in our fight to save the Republic by pledging your
financial support to Voices of Freedom."

How many leftists do you know that refer to the US as 'the Republic,' and
describe things as 'Voices of Freedom? Assuming the site is Libertarian, how
many Libertarians are environmentalists and into 'legal/social justice?' Thus
the site professes to be Left-oriented as far as it's goals, and lures people
on the left to thinking they are being represented, but basically it puts out
stories pushing rewritten nonsense about 9/11.

Here's an excerpt from the latest Syzmanski gem:

"Burn victim, Felipe David, employed by Aramark Co. and Salvatore Giambanco,
a WTC office painter trapped in a basement elevator, were both unavailable
for comment, but made their explosive testimony - never before released in
America - to a Colombian television station in 2002 on the first anniversary
of 9/11."

Both unavailable for comment. This is typical of Syzmanski - instead of real
reporting, he rehashes clips from other mainstream stories and then tries to
amplify them into the message he wants to send. His goal right now is to push
the 'bombs in the basement' scenario on 9/11. There are a number of problems
with this issue, one being that the first person involved in this, William Rodriguez,
also said he saw one of the hijackers scoping the building ahead of time - that
'hijacker' turns out to be alive, according to the BBC, and so the story is
tainted by this bizarre claim, which Rodriguez testified to the Omission Commission.

Rodriguez is also associated with the bogus RICO suit that promotes missiles
on 9/11.

- Victoria

assassinationscience.com

website of James Fetzer that promotes the "no flight 77" hoax and
the claim that the Moon landings were faked in a movie studio.

Fetzer is also the primary sponsor of Scholars
for Truth about 9/11, a mix of some good information and some
hoaxes.

The recently announced "Scholars for 9/11 truth" is the most recent
example of an outreach effort blending together quality work and sloppy support
for hoaxes. The analysis listed above by psychologist Michael Green is an excellent
effort to understand this phenomenon, and how it interferes with disseminating
the truths of 9/11 (and related scandals).

A newsletter titled "Center for an Informed America" (CIA). The "CIA"
offered accurate information about 9/11 complicity immediately after the attacks.
In 2004, the "CIA" claimed that Peak Oil is
not real, published numerous attacks against Michael
Ruppert (without mentioning his research on the 9/11 war
games), tried to disrupt planning for the International
Inquiry into 9/11 (in San Francisco in March 2004), and has made extra efforts
to promote the "no plane hit the Pentagon"
claim even while many 9/11 Truth advocates have documented it was just a hoax.

Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Victoria Ashley"
Subject: New McGowen Article - More Personal Attacks on 9/11 Researchers Who
Disagree
To: sf911truthalliance@riseup.net
email excerpt:
I find writing such as this, which includes various forms of personal attacks,
to be intentionally divisive and thus damaging, making me to wonder why McGowen
thinks that personally attacking 9/11 researchers is a valid method to approach
any sort of research, much less taking a movement forward:

---------------------

'Well, I guess the jig is up. Mr. Salter, it seems, has figured out our
diabolical plot.'
'Brian Salter (questionsquestions.net) posted a histrionic denunciation of
Pentagon "no-plane" theorists'
[defintion of 'histrionic' - (adjective) 1 : deliberately affected : theatrical
2 : of or relating to actors, acting, or the theater Example sentence: The
frustrated tourist launched into a histrionic account of his trip, shouting,
moaning, waving his arms, and exaggerating every minor problem encountered
along the way]
'Two of the most aggressive of the Tattoo theorists, by the way, are Jim Hoffman
and Brian Salter, both of whom were on the other side of the fence, so to
speak, until fairly recently. If you have ever known someone who quit smoking
and thereafter embarked on a mission to browbeat and berate every other smoker
on the planet, then you have a pretty good idea of how the Tattoo theorists
operate.'
'The primary strong-arm tactic of the Tattoo theorists'
'Am I the only one here who is wondering whether Mr. Judge has maybe been
watching too many reruns of old Saturday Night Live skits featuring Jon Lovitz.
"Yeah, John, that's it ... that's the ticket."'
'After reviewing Judge's various Pentagon rants'
'Memo to John Judge: lying isn't as easy as it may appear to be.'
'Isn't the fact that you choose to ignore his [Judge's] contributions a tacit
admission that you know full well that he is lying his ass off?'
You would think that if the Pentagon attack theories were the 'straw men'
that the Tattoo theorists* claim, then the 'debunkers' would be better prepared
to knock those straw men down, and they would devote more print space to doing
so. Instead, we find the Pentagon attack being downplayed in a major
media attack on the 9-11 skeptics movement -- at the very same time,
curiously enough, that a number of 9-11 skeptics have begun aggressively demanding
that all "unnecessary speculation" about the Pentagon attack be
dropped
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html
*Tatoo theorist: one who claims a plane hit the Pentagon.

---------------------

The issue of 'No Plane at the Pentagon' is a serious one for the movement
and trying to turn the issue into a personal one is not only unnecessary and
unprofessional in research, it doesn't serve our movement and attempts to divide
us. I don't particularly agree with everything John Judge says, but I recognize
every researcher's right to make a valid argument and not be called names or
made fun of. The research itself is what will eventually bear out the validity
of the theory, not the person who presents it. If our movement is to be a serious
one, articles like this must be underscored as a way NOT to move forward - present
your best research, don't attack our 9/11 community for the purpose of dividing
and ridiculing.

[note: this "CIA" newsletter article is completely opposite
of reality -- nearly all of the mass media attacks on the 9/11 skeptics have
focused on the "no plane" claims in order to ridicule and discredit
claims that actually have verifiable evidence -- who benefits from such distortion?]

infowars.com

The Alex Jones radio show seems to be an electronic vacuum cleaner that publishes
virtually any claim regardless of whether there is real evidence or not. Some
of the hoaxes pushed by this show include his claim that Gary
Webb was stalked by government agents on his balcony before he was supposedly
murdered (in reality: there wasn't a balcony on his house and his family is
convinced he really did commit suicide).

Other great Jones hoaxes include

support for key elements of the "planesite"
film, his efforts to give them credibility

promotion of the Stanley Hilton lawsuit (the only
named plaintiff bases his legal strategy to sue the Bush administration on
his being fired from Nieman Marcus department store for passing out anti-war
literature). Mr. Hilton used to be an assistant to Senator Bob Dole.

April 27, 2005
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2005/270405newfootage.htm
New Flight 175 Footage: No Pod?

Since other websites and 9/11 truth organizations began talking about
the pod, this website has attempted to be balanced and air the views of both
sides.

Nonsense. Infowars was pushing this long after a lot of people proved 1000%
this was a hoax. In early May 2004, the 9/11 Truth Alliance list had a photo
posted to it by a member that clearly showed the "pod" was a myth,
a bad joke - a photo that wound up on the cover of "In Plane Site"
(a "coincidence" that the movie's makers not attempted to discuss
in their pathetic refutations of the extensive reviews by the 9/11 truth movement
-- there is no innocent explanation for that).
Infowars is many things, but "balanced" is not one of them. Perhaps
they are merely gullible, incompetent and a patsy for cointelpro disinformation
(if they are sincere). People making a couple of mistakes that are corrected
is one thing -- but systematically promoting hoaxes and lending credibility
to people making up nonsense that is used to discredit us is not acceptable,
even if they have nice rhetoric.

It is a common tactic for the government media spin machine to misdirect
people's attention by getting them excited about one aspect of an issue, then
later bring out evidence to debunk that aspect and thus tarnish the credibility
of the entire subject.

How nice to see Jones admit this after years of other people pointing this
out, using his website as an example of how this tactic works. One of the straw
men used by the Popular Mechanics debunk
debuted on Infowars (the claim of the identity of the pilot who might, or might
not have, shot down Flight 93 - the plane was shot down, but the only evidence
that the named pilot was involved was a collaboration between letsroll911 and
infowars - just at the point when many people were pointing out that letsroll911
was basing its extreme claims on apparently photoshopped images).
If Alex Jones had any shame, he'd issue a BIG apology for his role in pushing
hoaxes and withdraw from the spotlight. Perhaps he could return to his show
after hiring some editors and fact checkers.
While many in the 9/11 truth movement have been snared by one form of disinfo
or another, most have been sincerely striving to avoid them.
Does this retraction by the pod people mean that Power Hour will now issue refunds
to the people who bought their fake film?

Many analysts fear this is the case with 9/11.

Infowars has been one of the worst examples of promoting fake evidence.

For example, whatreallyhappened.com and others postulate that the government
will eventually release clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. This
will then discredit an entire portion of the 9/11 truth movement and the debunkers
will have a field day. It is unclear whether the movement could take a blow
of this magnitude and not be significantly damaged.

Does this mean that Alex "I'll print anything" Jones is going to
backtrack on the no-planes claims too?

How can Alex Jones say "In every case we trace the peak oil energy crisis
crowd back to Big Oil" without naming even one of those cases?
Is Richard Heinberg connected to “Big Oil”? NO. Mike
Ruppert? NO.
Of course Matt Simmons is, Colin
Campbell, and many of the scientists and geologists publishing information
on peak-oil. But what a HUGE, and incorrect, claim by Jones. I’m not
suprised.
Jones has already referred to conservation efforts with disdain, such as "The
Nightmare Kyoto Protocol," and stating that global warming is a "chicken-little
debate of the sky falling" where he says the world is merely on a "natural
climate-cycle" of 12,000 years.
Jones comes from a crowd that does not like the theory of evolution. They
believe in Creationism. The wrongly-claimed Abiotic origin of oil fits in
with this belief system –
THE WORLD IS REALLY YOUNG. THERE WAS NOTHING ON THE PLANET MILLIONS OF YEARS
AGO. OIL IS MADE FROM THE MANTLE, NOT ANCIENT FOSSILS. THAT IS PART OF A HUGE
CONSPIRACY IN SCIENCE TO ADD SUPPORT TO EVOLUTION AS A VALID THEORY. BUT WE
KNOW BETTER, WE HAVE READ GENESIS AND NOTHING CAN SPEAK ABOVE THE HOLY BOOK.
Also it is obvious that Jones is not following the renewable energy boom at
all. Goldman Sachs just bought a major wind developer, Military & Intel
(including James Woolsey and others) have publicly backed renewable energy
in a major way (and the mainstream media has remained eerily silent on this).
Yet Jones claims alternative energy is being suppressed right when it is having
its biggest boom ever.
Of course there has been suppression of technologies for decades by Big-Oil.
No question. That’s because they want to make all the money.
DUH!
And OF COURSE the oil industry is happy to see all of the coverage of peak-oil
now. It gives yet another reason for market volatility justifying $55 oil
going on up.
That doesn’t mean peak-oil isn’t true. People point to "The
Club of Rome" in the 70’s – saying they helped manipulate
the oil crisis that happened then for economic gains – and say this
is what is happening now. Of course – to a certain degree – there
will be (and are) market manipulations. There always has been. But everyone
is in a disgusting, and very frightening state of denial, in not recognizing
this time around, on top of the economic crisis, there is a geological crisis.
Even if there were "endless oil" that would be TERRIBLE! Global
warming would lead to a much more rapid extinction of mankind from Mother
Earth.
Oh, but I forgot, according to Alex Jones and the Cato Institute THERE IS
NO GLOBAL WARMING!
Everyone should watch out for Alex Jones and Jeff Rense’s spin. Check
out what www.rense.com links to as a permanent link on their left tool bar.
Russia Proves ‘Peak Oil’ A Misleading Zionist Scam
FTW warned about this in October of last year when we published Ugo Bardi’s
masterpiece ABIOTIC OIL: SCIENCE OR POLITICS
Ugo states:

So, the abiotic oil theory is irrelevant to the
debate about peak oil and it would not be worth discussing were it not for
its political aspects. If people start with the intention of demonstrating
that the concept of “peak oil” was created by a “Zionist
conspiracy” or something like that, anything goes. In this case, however,
the debate is no longer a scientific one. Fortunately, as Colin Campbell said,
“Oil is ultimately controlled by events in the geological past which
are immune to politics.”

A posting by an anonymous commenter: whether Jones is paid disinfo or merely
sloppy, the end result is the same ...

Alex Jones is a dis-info agent and paid no doubt. His job is to include some
truth to make himself look credible and then rant away like a madman discrediting,
for instance, the 9/11 truth movement.
A number of times I have wanted to show people an AJ link only to think better
of it after thinking I would look like a madman for supporting him. This way
the truth is tainted with aliens, prison states, etc and no-one knows what
to think. This is why he appears so well funded too - It ain't from DVD sales.
Once he had a guest talk about the murder of Dr David Kelly (lawyer called
Michael Shrimpton, very credible) and then proceeded to talk and rant through
all the most important things the guest was saying. The end result was something
that sounded like Looney Radio and the truth of what was being said was tainted
with it.
So, don't take him too seriously - they want to paralyse you with fear about
the police state and make alternative thinkers look silly. It's crap.

johnkaminski.com and warfolly.com

John Kaminski is an internet writer who has promoted the "webfairy"
claim that the World Trade Center north tower (first to be hit) was attacked
by a missile masked by a King Kong sized hologram (which is beyond ridiculous)
and praises a leading advocate for Holocaust denial (a websearch for "Kaminski
Zundel" will retrieve lots of articles about this). Kaminski's
support for the "webfairy" disinformation campaign and for neo-Nazi
Holocaust denial advocate Ernst Zundel discredits the 9/11 Truth Movement --
"no planes and no gas chambers?" He has also written "the
Fatal Flaw in the Coverup" which claims that

We have security camera film at the Pentagon,
which surely reveal that no jetliner hit that building, locked away in Ashcroft's
vault under the phony aegis of national security. We have all the rubble of
the World Trade Center, which surely would have revealed the use of nuclear
explosives creating shattered beams in odd places, instantly
carted away with no forensic investigation. We have transcripts - but no recordings
- of these phony cellphone calls, some from people who may not have even existed.

Kaminski's summer 2004 articles claimed that the 9/11 movement had fallen apart,
accomplished nothing, and that 9/11 skeptics should support the "webfairy"
theories that no planes hit the WTC in order to be credible. In reality, acceptance
of the basic tenet of the 9/11 truth movement -- that 9/11 was not a surprise
attack -- has continued to grow and grow (which is why the disinformation about
9/11 complicity has increased). Fahrenheit 9/11 (a flawed, brilliant
film) was shown in packed theaters everywhere. Over six million Deception Dollars
are in circulation. More and more people joined the call for a truly independent
9/11 investigation and have made statements of support for the 9/11 truth movement.

Kaminski is one of the voices supposedly part of the 9/11 truth movement attacking
the idea that Peak Oil was a primary motivation for US government complicity
in 9/11. These efforts are debunked at www.oilempire.us/abiotic.html

Mr. Kaminksi has a website titled "warfolly.com,"
in which he claims that Michael Ruppert and David Icke are "people who
have done their homework." Mr. Ruppert is on record stating that he detests
being associated with Mr. Icke in any way, since Mr. Icke's claims that the
world is really run by alien reptiles makes the serious research look ridiculous. No planes at the World Trade Center, no gas chambers in the Holocaust,
and alien reptiles run the world -- a great way to discredit the 9/11 truth
movement.

A February 2005 article - "The Second Wave: New Books, New Groups Fuel Smoldering Resurgence Of
911 Skeptics Movement" - claims to highlight what he calls the "Second
Wave" of the 9/11 truth movement -- folks supposedly doing the real work
yet most of those highlighted are mixing fake claims with real evidence (ie.
Wing TV, listed below).

Perhaps the nastiest part of the article is the smear that Mike Ruppert

"was the prime saboteur of the first wave, ruining the first
big 9/11 forum in San Francisco with his oil company propaganda."

You can read the transcript of Mike's main presentation to the 9/11 Inquiry
to read for yourself how ridiculous this claim really is.

Who benefits from active voices on the internet
creating articles to discredit the thesis put forth by Ruppert and many other
9/11 truth activists that a primary reason that 9/11 was allowed to happen was
the neo-conservatives preparation for the economic crises of Peak Oil? Kaminski has written a number of articles denying the existence of natural limits to industrial growth, and the claim
that mentioning that oil is not infinite is somehow oil company propaganda is
even more absurd than the hoaxes about missiles fired at the Twin Towers and
the Pentagon on 9/11. It is fascinating that the internet voices attacking Ruppert
never mention his book "Crossing the Rubicon" and its amazing accusations
about the role of drug money or Cheney's complicity in 9/11 -- it is hard to
imagine an innocent, sincere explanation for the oversight.

The "25 best writers on the internet" list is a mix of excellent
commentators, journalists and some writers who promote outrageous nonsense.
As the internet becomes a more respected alternative to the corporate media,
it is likely that further efforts will continue to be made to encourage the
idea that the dissident voices promote hoaxes, not serious investigative journalism.
Some people will fall for these kinds of bait, while many more will see the
web as the domain of writers who make stuff up that is not true. As is usually
the case, the middle ground is where the reality lies -- the web is a powerful
alternative medium that is being targetted by mixing real and fake.

These two have published a variety of speculations and hoaxes mixed with real
information, which makes discerning the truth much more difficult to determine.
McGowan's website still flogs the dead, debunked hoax that claims that no plane
hit the Pentagon on 9/11 (even though hundreds, if not thousands of people saw
it happen and the primary "evidence" for this consists of photoshopped
images from anonymous authors).
Perhaps that hoax needs reinforcing as even some of the 9/11 complicity writers
who used to believe it now realize it is a fake claim (the REAL issues of complicity
are WHERE the Pentagon was hit - the nearly empty part - and WHY the Air Force
did not defend its headquarters).
see http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html for a list of sites that have archived
over a hundred eyewitness accounts, photos of Boeing parts in the Pentagon rubble,
and the probability that remote control technology was used to ensure that that
the nearly empty, recently reconstructed sector was hit instead of a more populated
part of the building.

7. Chris Floyd
8. Mark Morford

Floyd and Morford are excellent writers who probably would vehemently disagree
with much of the material published by the next on this list:

9. Christopher Bollyn

Mr. Bollyn is with the so-called American Free Press, which also publishes
the "Barnes Review," a publication that recently claimed that Hitler
should have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize and sells a variety of books claiming
that Nazi death camps were not actually death camps. Mr. Bollyn has published
a variety of hoaxes on the 9/11 complicity issues, including the truly bizarre
claim that there wasn't actually a plane crash in Pennsylvania (even though
there were eyewitnesses and a several mile long debris field suggesting the
plane was really shot down by an air-to-air missile). They do publish enough
real material to snare readers -- it is a form of bait.
The author of this list (Mr. Kaminski) is associating some very good analysts
with some very bad analysts who promote hoaxes about 9/11 complicity issues
and support for Ernst Zundel, a notorious Holocaust Denial advocate. (a websearch
for "Kaminski Zundel" will find hundreds of references to Mr. Kaminksi's
praise of Mr. Zundel).
It should not be necessary to point out that Israel's genocide of the Palestinians
does not justify denying / downplaying the Holocaust, just as the Holocaust
does not justify Israel's destruction of the Palestinians.
It is likely that some of the Holocaust Denial voices on the web and in real
life are "false flag" operations to boost support for Israeli military
aggression. In other words, if the wingnuts claiming that Auschwitz and Treblinka
didn't have gas chambers didn't exist, they'd have to be invented to provide
cover for Israel's behavior. Who benefits? Those who deny one genocide have
no right to complain about another one, since all life is precious regardless
of whether they're jewish, christian, muslim or any other flavor of humanity.

from Jim Hoffman, webmaster of wtc7.net (widely regarded as the best "physical
evidence" website examining 9/11) and 911review.com (not org)

For all I know Chris [Bollyn] is a sincere (despite apparently embracing
some amazing Holocaust revisionist views) hardworking investigative reporter.
If that's true, however, he doesn't seem to apply a very good critical filter
to the information he gathers. For example, he appears to be the source of
some of the more deeply ingrained errors in the 9/11 skeptics' literature,
such as the Building 6 explosion myth:
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/b6_explosion.html
and the idea that seismic spikes preceded the collapses:
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html
I recently spoke at an event in Los Angeles: "Solving the 9/11 Crime
- A Citizens' Grand Jury", in which Chris was promoting "In Plane
Site", and presenting dozens of ideas for which I see no basis in evidence. I was so disturbed at the damage he was doing to the credibility of
careful research that I spent half of my talk debunking the more nonsensical
ideas he advanced in his talk just before mine.

---------------------------------------------
Brainwashing in the US
by Ann Pettifer
Dissident Voice
October 7, 2002
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Pettifer_Brainwashing.htm
Besides accusations of conspiracy, there is a new tactic for dealing with Israel's
critics: charge them with anti-Semitism. This is the ploy now being used by
the President of Harvard, Lawrence Summers, as a small but growing constituency
for divestment from Israel has appeared on his campus and others around the
country. Summers' shamelessness is best answered by a fellow Jew, the Auschwitz
survivor Primo Levi. Thomas Laqueur, reviewing three new books on Levi, calls
him "one of the most resonant witnesses to the greatest human disaster
of a disastrous age." However, Levi did not think the Jewish catastrophe
should be used to justify "what he regarded as Israeli tribalist and aggressive
actions in the name of a sacred history of unique suffering." Laqueur,
(who is also Jewish) writes that the Israeli invasion (under Ariel Sharon) of
Lebanon in 1982 greatly disturbed Primo Levi, "and on the eve of a trip
back to Auschwitz, Levi signed a petition, together with other Jewish intellectuals,
calling for the withdrawal of Israeli troops and recognition of the rights of
all peoples in the region. 'Everyone is someone's Jew' he was quoted as saying
in an interview 'and today the Palestinians are the Jews of the Israelis.'"

Many of these are very good, but there's a couple of traps set up here ...

the best new 9/11 website <http://reopen911.org/index.htm>

The "reopen911.org" site is a mix of real and hoaxes -- it is run
by a multimillionaire heir who is promoting a hoax film called "In Plane
Site." This "film" is similar to the Karl Rove style discrediting
tactic -- take a real conclusion (9/11 was an inside job) and muddy the waters
with fake evidence. Rove's media operations are masters at discrediting scandals
with seemingly real, but fake evidence, and were probably behind the "Bush
AWOL" papers given to CBS before the "election" to discredit
the truth that George W Bush went AWOL in the Air National Guard (when they
started drug testing).

5. Controversial Australian journalist Joe Vialls consistently produces
the most jaw-dropping analyses of current events on the web, from behind-the-scenes
analyses of terror bombings

This guy claimed the bombing in Bali, Indonesia shortly after 9/11 was really
a nuke. Mixing fake and real evidence is a great way to discredit the real evidence.

6. Dave MacGowan has written the best single overview of 9/11 <http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69.html>
and his Center for an Informed America website <http://davesweb.cnchost.com/index.html>

Center for an Informed America (CIA) - another bad joke?
The CIA website claims that oil is infinite and pushes the "no plane at
the Pentagon" hoax.
See www.oilempire.us/abiotic.html for analysis that
points out the "abiotic" claims for oil predate the theory of plate
tectonics ...

Sherman Skolnick is the mindboggling, encyclopedic investigator of
the nasty underbelly of American history. It is safe to say you'll never
be the same after reading Skolnick. http://www.skolnicksreport.com/

Skolnick's stuff is entertaining, but it is unlikely that all (much?) of it
is true. Reader beware.

Bob Feldman is the principal revealer of the Gatekeeper syndrome, one
of the most important phenomena in understanding whatís really going
on with American media. http://www.questionsquestions.net/feldman/feldman07.html

Michael Collins Piper is the author of the best book on the Kennedy

Piper is an editor of the neo-Nazi Barnes Review (barnesreview.org) which as
mentioned above recently published an article claiming that Adolf Hitler should
have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize.
This list is probably a very slick form of propaganda to discredit internet
activism that will be picked up and spread around widely, faster than these
comments that explain how there are some unpleasant surprises on the list that
get in the way of truth and justice.
for better links about the Kennedy assassination, see www.oilempire.us/jfk.html

There are many authors and scientists who have been examining these sorts of
issues for a much longer period of time, including those who have done primary
scientific research.
One group doing organizing on this issue is the Military Toxics Project, reachable
at www.miltoxproj.org
The film "Hidden Wars of Desert Storm" is a good resource for this,
too - hiddenwars.org is a website for the film. (It includes an interview with General Schwarzkopf,
who said that the military was conducting a wargame simulating Iraq invading
Kuwait when the real thing happened, just like the many war
games the military and intelligence agencies were doing on the morning of
9/11 that were similar in some ways to the real events.)
See also the Nuclear Information and Resource Service www.nirs.org links to anti-nuclear and safe energy organizations.

I give you this list as a gift of hope, to show you that it is possible
that honest people CAN rule the world, if the rest of us would only
listen to the descriptions by these wonderful writers, and try to be as
honest as they are.

This is a very cynical comment from an author who mixes true evidence with
nonsense.

karlschwarz.com

Karl Schwarz, a self-described conservative Christian Republican who now claims
opposition to President Bush, is promoting a variety of false
claims about 9/11 complicity and unreliable efforts to expose this scandal
(such as WingTV).

A website that emerged shortly after the March 2004 International Inquiry into
9/11, its primary thesis is that Flight 175 (which hit the South Tower - the
second plane) was a substitute plane for the actual hijacking and that this
substitute plane had an anomalous "pod" underneath the wing that fired
a missile at the building a split second before impact. The only evidence for
this extreme claim (the missile) is a very low quality video clip that looks
like it has been digitally altered with Photoshop (or another program). The
"pod" is just a photo of the normal bulge under
the plane between the wing and fuselage. This hoax has not been very
popular within the 9/11 truth movement, but it has given mainstream media defenders
of the official story ammunitiion to discredit all allegations of complicity.

Loose
Change

Loose Change is essentially a second edition of 911:
In Plane Site, using some of the same footage and making many of the same
erroneous claims. Both Plane Site and Loose Change made a similar psychological
trick, issuing a revised second edition that supposedly removed the wrong parts
even though most of the errors are still in the newer version.

I have great respect for the courage of all the legitimate 911 researchers
who try to find the truth and tell it to others, but they often forget a simple
essential point. Because 911 (JFK, etc.) are not ordinary crimes, but crimes
of state, they cannot be proven by simple forensic means. The proof of any
such crimes requires rethinking our picture of the means of government from
the ground up. People naturally do not wish to do this, and are propagandized
to believe the contrary, so any effort to get their attention should be with
evidence that is simple, clear, and convincing, not abstract, obscure, dubious
or debatable. I do not pretend that this is enough. Orwellian "stop think"
provides that "protective stupidity" that allows us to function
in comfort and it is both difficult and painful to abandon. My best friend
of nearly 40 years, and former co-author, now ensconced at Harvard, has trouble
taking me seriously when I discuss 911. Within the past months he admitted
not knowing that a 47 story steel building (WTC7) not hit by anything, and
with only a few small fires, had collapsed as a perfect implosion would, nor
did he know that the 911 Commission had refused even to mention WTC7 in its
report, nor did he think much of these facts nor of his ignorance of them.
This is a very smart man, open-minded in many respects, but giving up the
world-view he inhabits is simply too hard, especially when there is nothing
coherent with which to replace it. ....

If a film-maker or live lecturer has the good fortune of having the attention
of someone like this, or good solid middle-Americans, for an hour-long DVD,
or for a 2-3 hour live presentation, he had better use clear hard facts for
persuasion, and not iffy, vaguely or ambiguously supported possibilities.
The intelligence agencies that do the crimes try to control the counter-community's
response by infiltrating moles that infect it with large falsehoods and impossible-to-prove
technical questions (micro-analysis). The large falsehoods are designed to
prove the community wrong and nuts if the need arises. The microanalysis into
pointless or unanswerable questions, or into just plain dumb ones, is to divert
its energies from using the clear hard facts to tell the story simply and
clearly. ....

The DVD "Loose Change" by rising media artist Dylan Avery has been
touted by some members of the 911-truth community as the best presentation
yet, as the "best evidence" (a reference to David Lifton’s
book, "Best Evidence" on the JFK assassination). This review will
show that the DVD is anything but that; if it is not naive, foolish, uninformed
and ignorant, then it is the work of a calculating mole or at best a naïf
who has been used by such.

I gave Reynolds the benefit of the doubt when I first critiqued his article:
"Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?," about 40% of which
pushes the no-jetliners poison pill, sandwiched in-beteen a reasonably good
summary of the case for the controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2, and 7:

But the promised Part II has not been forthcomming. Instead, Reynolds has
become more strident in pushing the no-jetliner nonsense, on the Coast-to-Coast
radio broadcast and in the recent Boulder Weekly article.

Here are the results I get by searching Google for sites linking to:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
( the URL for "Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?" )

I frequently use the pictures in Painful Questions to show receptive folk
that the Towers were exploded, but urge them not to read the book itself because
it is so full of misinformation and peculiar reasoning. I do not wish to burden
the reader with details of his forensics, which are often roughly right but
written with peculiar or bizarre commentary guaranteed to alienate many readers.
....

Hufschmid also denies that a Boeing hit the Pentagon. Joël van der Reijden,
a very rational gentleman whose website is now http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/home.html,
presented a powerful case that a Boeing did hit the Pentagon, and engaged
Hufschmid in debate. Hufschmid refused to answer any of the substantive points
....

Hufschmid is also a Holocaust denier, and proud of it. In a January 6, 2006
essay, he wrote, “People who question the official story of the Holocaust
are not Holocaust Deniers. Rather, they are Holocaust Truth Seekers, or HoloHoax
Exposers.” www.erichufschmid.net/Separating_truth_from_lies.htm.

The sane evidence-based 911 activists know that we have been infiltrated and sabotaged by the USG intelligence community that manages as part of its handiwork to fund and promote the genuine loons and fools who are naturally drawn to such repugnant ideas as that the major acts of domestic terror are of government/military/intelligence origins, and who have bizarre if not nutty theories of how these events are staged, and are thus easily discredited. The natural mix of loons is then seasoned with moles. We have thus been blessed by support from such champions of truth as Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D., the former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor under Bush 43, whose official position is that 911 is an "inside job" as evidenced by his deranged assertion that no plane hit either the Pentagon or either of the Twin Towers, the damage to which were caused respectively by a missile and internal explosives. There is also a growingly popular "Patriots Question 911" http://patriotsquestion911.com/ full of high ranking former military officials who claim to doubt the official story based on their patently false claim that no Boeing hit the Pentagon. Since the Boeing crash, wreckage and carnage were witnessed by Pentagon personnel, basing objections to the official 911 story on the claim that no Boeing hit the Pentagon is calculated to antagonize all the innocent military against the 911 movement as nutcakes. We are similarly inundated with "scientists" who expose 911 as an inside job basing their bizarre claims that the Towers were destroyed by space-based energy beams, or destroyed by small nuclear bombs. The sane branch of the 911 movement is also blessed by comrades-in-arms who with one hand denounce 911 as an inside job and with the other deny the Holocaust. With friends like this, who needs (more!) enemies? [emphases added]

Discrediting By Association:
Undermining the Case
for
Patriots Who Question 9/11
by
Victoria Ashley

Version 1.2, August 13, 2007

The website PatriotsQuestion911.com makes a strong case for the important fact that hundreds of notable, credible, professional, and experienced people have serious questions about the official story of the 9/11 attacks. These include government officials, scholars, household-name actors, retired military officers, pilots, and even 9/11 family members, shown in rich color photographs and paired with quotes in their own words along with relevant links. Creator Alan Miller and others helping him have done a laudable job of tracking down and documenting these hundreds of individuals of note and presenting them in an appealing format for easy public understanding of the scope of concerns with the official story.

Unfortunately, the site currently also functions in a different and opposite way, albeit subtle. By presenting, directly alongside the serious and professional notable individuals, the advocates of ridiculous nonsense claims about the 9/11 attacks -- space weapons, nukes, "TV fakery" and even holograms -- the website functions to undermine a serious reader's overall belief that the site, the community, and the individuals are actually as credible as their titles suggest. This is not an extensive criticism of the site, but a specific concern which can easily be corrected, but yet has not been. Currently, individuals like Norman Mineta, Curt Weldon, Daniel Ellsberg and Richard Heinberg are placed on the same lists with Morgan Reynolds, David Shayler, Judy Wood and James Fetzer. Given the history of these individuals in the 9/11 community, such mixing serves the opposite purpose of the ostensible premise of the site.

If one actually clicks on the links of these last four individuals, listens to the talks, or reads the material, there is no question that mixed with the real claims, the bizarre core of what they are advocating amounts to utter nonsense.

Pentagon
Strike

A film released in late summer 2004 promoting the "no
plane at Pentagon" hoax -- the sequel to "In Plane Site?"

A video clip that was posted to numerous sites in late summer 2004 supposedly
documents the "no plane" at the Pentagon claims. It was released shortly
after "In Plane Site" -- but only focuses on the "no plane at
Pentagon" hoax. It is probable that "Pentagon Strike" was the
sequel to "Plane Site," since "Plane Site" had so many crackpot
claims in it that it encountered considerable opposition in its effort to redefine
9/11. Pentagon Strike is focused solely on the "no
plane at Pentagon" hoax, which unfortunately has been treated more
seriously.

This film is slick propaganda that avoids most of the evidence, flashes quickly
from point to point, distracts the viewer with rock music (perhaps a type of
"bait" to snare youthful web surfers?), and would not qualify as forensic
evidence in any courtroom. It is a form of "disinfotainment."

Pentagon Strike is only a couple minutes long, and a couple megabytes in size
- easily downloadable, even without high speed internet. It has been hosted
on countless websites. Pentagon Strike has been much more effective
at spreading disinformation than In Plane Site. Read the Washington
Post's review of this film - which was very effective at discrediting 9/11
truth issues in the national capital area a month before the pseudo-election
of 2004.

physics911

A site marketed as the "Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven"
(SPINE).

Physics911 offers the science fiction story "Operation
Pearl," which theorizes that the passengers on the four planes were all
escorted onto Flight 93, perhaps in Harrisburg, PA, and then Flight 93 then
was shot down while the other three planes were dumped into the Atlantic. The
odds of this being true are about the same as winning the lottery, since this
would have made it much less likely to keep the operation secret and compartmentalized
to the minimum number of people possible. Physics911 states that they
prefer to invent hypotheses and then see if there's evidence that fits their
story (although there isn't actually any evidence to support "Operation
Pearl"). However, it is more scientific to stick to the best evidence (which is triple checked) and then see what scenario could possibly
fit the provable evidence.

Physics911 has attacked 9/11 Research's Jim Hoffman, a story detailed at Hoffman's
site at http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/adhominem.html Physics911 falsely promoted the claim that Hoffman was claiming to be a medical
doctor and was part of SPINE's advisory board. It took a long time for Physics911
to remove their false claims from their site despite numerous requests from
Hoffman.

Plane Substitution?The plane substitution hoax is the core of "physics 911," and it is discussed in two articles by an internet persona called
"Woody Box"

There's not any verifiable evidence for these articles -- there needs to be
more than mere assertion before adopting these claims as proven. This skepticism
is especially necessary, given that the "woodybox" persona has written
that the pod story is scientific research. The only "research"
underway with the "pod" hoax is a form of psychology research, to
see how far this misinformation can be spread by 9/11 skeptics.

A form of "plane substitution" WAS apparently used in the KAL 007 scandal
in 1983.

The KAL 007 scandal involved a 747 merging very close to an NSA spy plane on
the USSR border (which formed a single radar blip), and then the 747 headed
into Soviet air space. The Russians thought it was the spy plane that entered,
but it was merely the passenger plane. It probably wasn't carrying surveillance
equipment, but it triggered the Russian air defense system to activate its standard
operating procedures, radars, communication systems, etc. -- which were vacuumed
up by numerous external platforms, including the Space Shuttle orbiting overhead. See "Shootdown: Flight 007 and the American Connection" by
R.W. Johnson and "KAL 007: The Coverup, why the true story has never been
told" by David Pearson. Note: Seymour Hersh's book "The Target is Destroyed" claims that the official story the plane was innocently off-course is difficult to believe given the evidence in the Johnson and Pearson books. The thesis of those two books is KAL 007 was not actually a surveillance plane, but was part of a covert "passive probe" surveillance operation. A previous KAL overflight of the Soviet Union had been forced to land a few years earlier, so the risk of the passenger plane containing sophisticated spy equipment was too dangerous. But an allegedly innocent commercial jet that flew over sensitive military facilities (clearly marked on all aviation maps as a dangerous area to avoid) would not risk the international incident of a deliberate intrusion of their airspace. When KAL 007 strayed into Soviet territory, the air defenses were activated as their Air Force tried to figure out what was underay. The US military carefully watched this response, which was an intelligence bonanza. If KAL 007 was in fact innocently off course, there is no evidence that the US military attempted to warn the plane's pilots that they were headed for trouble (that area is one of the most monitored on the planet, and if a US - Russia nuclear war happens, many observers have speculated it would probably be triggered where the US Navy confronts Russian forces in the northwest Pacific. There do not appear to be any good websites that discuss this scandal -- the best compilations of evidence of the KAL 007 scandal predates the internet, so this information is only available in books (an archaic concept it seems in the age of websites).

REBUTTAL TO JAMES FETZER
LITMUS TEST FOR RATIONAILTY?
REBUTTAL TO JAMES FETZER
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
June 27 2007
last updated September 15 2007

A new press release boosting Pilots for 9/11 Truth as “driv[ing] another nail into a coffin of lies told the American people by The 9/11 Commission” was just released by Scholars for 9/11 Truth (the Fetzer wing). Co-founder of the recently-divided organization James Fetzer in fact seems to have written up the release, titled “New study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.” It was released on June 21 and picked up by Yahoo news, apparently a bit of an achievement, and has been widely republished since then.

rense.com

A site that publishes good material and red herrings. The kindest interpretation
is that it desperately needs an editor.

Rense is useful for seeing what the latest nonsense is from the hoaxers
trying to disrupt the 9/11 truth movement in the same way that reading the New
York Times or Washington Post is useful for understanding what the mainstream
spin is in the news.

Rense prominently links to Holocaust
denial. Rense has numerous promotions on their main page - as of
March 2005 - to neo-nazi Ernst Zundel, one of the heroes of holocaust denial
advocates. Rense is also promoting an article claiming that Peak Oil is a "zionist
conspiracy" which is part of a propaganda effort to counter growing awareness
of Peak Oil through publication of articles claiming that petroleum is "abiotic"
and therefore unlimited.

Rense published attacks on Michael Ruppert when his book Crossing the Rubicon
was published -- see www.rense.com/general58/bogus.htm No one seems to have
written a direct attack on the contents of "Crossing the Rubicon,"
although the volume of mud being thrown at Mike has increased substantially.

Rense claims that they try to separate the wheat from the chaff, and get over
1,000 emails per day, making this determination difficult to do at times. A
good rule to follow is that outlandish claims based on blurry pictures of questionable
authenticity that are only sourced to websites should be ignored, not
used as the basis to pretend that there's new "news" about the 9/11
investigations. Websites that operate as an electronic vacuum cleaner
sucking up all claims without making even a small effort to differentiate facts
from rumors, truths from disinformation are not reliable as news sources, even
if some of the articles they post are excellent.

In February 2006, Rense published Nazi propaganda that smears the peace movement.
Written by long term Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson, it tries to persuade
the naive and the uninformed that if they oppose Israeli military policies and/or
the threatened US war on Iran, that they should embrace Holocaust
denial. There is no innocent way to interpret this effort to bait the peace
movement into instantly discrediting themselves.

www.rense.com/general69/FIGHT.HTM
The Fight For
Historical Factualism
Commentary/Opinion
By Robert Faurisson
2-19-6

from Michael Kane, From the Wilderness

Soon after we published our Ptech series at FTW:www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012005_ptech_pt1.shtmlwww.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012705_ptech_pt2.shtml
Jeff Rense attacked Mike Ruppert - one of the most vicious attacks I've ever
seen. Rense put Ruppert's face on the top of his homepage and linked to one
after another Ruppert-trashing 'article.'
What's the connection?
In both part 1 & 2 we talked in-depth about the "New Right"
marriage between (neo)-Nazis and Islamic extremists. Take a good look at Jeff's
site and you will see that it is part of that "New Right" marriage.
Jeff goes out of his way to make Israeli's look like Nazis while defending
Nazi supporters like Zundel. Right after we talked in-depth about this "New
Right" marriage and its link to 9/11 Mike Ruppert was attacked viciously
at his rense.com.
This has nothing to do with Israel being a vicious, cruel, inhumane state
just like the U.S. is - we know what Israel is and we don't need Rense, AFP, or Infowars reports to make sense
of it.
This has to do with a hidden agenda.

reopen911.org

An effort by multi-millionaire Jimmy Walter who suddenly started promoting
"In Plane Site" after this "film"
received tremendous criticism and scorn from the 9/11 truth movement. His site
promotes "planesite" as among the best pieces of work from the independent
investigations despite numerous efforts by writers, investigators and activists
to educate him about the actual evidence.

Whatever Mr. Walter's motivations are, the "planesite" film acquired
a benefactor who spent considerable money to promote a film that is mostly made
up of disproved material that distracts from real evidence.

Walter has spent a couple of million dollars on flamboyant newspaper ads and
TV infomercials pushing a mix of disinformation (no plane at Pentagon) and real
evidence (the collapse of Building 7). These millions were not spent on supporting
the best researchers, websites and activist efforts which would have had a more positive outcome.

Due to Walter's large budget, he got a lot of media exposure in the mainstream
press -- and performed poorly in the spotlight. The mainstream media (ie. New
York Times) focused more on Mr. Walter than investigators who unearthed verifiable
evidence of official complicity.

On September 11, 2004, Walter sponsored a large forum in New York titled "Confronting
the Evidence." He insisted in putting the main person behind "In Plane
Site" on the program despite several diplomatic efforts from sober activists
and writers more familiar with the topics that this would be a poor choice. A science editor for a major national publication, who had been impressed with
some of the best
material of the 9/11 truth movement, was told by Mr. Walter that the twin
towers were blown up with nuclear explosives -- and this editor immediately
dropped further interest in covering these issues. If Walter was trying to dissuade
the media from taking 9/11 truth seriously, then the event was a big success.

Walter's event, by nearly all accounts, was a public relations disaster. Several
of the key organizers who worked to make the event happen were fired by Walter
and expelled from the auditorium mid-way through the show. The speakers were
a mix of very good and really awful -- which makes it hard for ordinary citizens
interested in the topics to comprehend what is going on. This event was much
lower quality than other major presentations (such as the International Inquiries
in San Francisco and Toronto) and logistically bizarre -- a direct contrast
to an extremely high quality, professional presentation two days prior (the
Citizens Commission on 9/11, with Cynthia McKinney, Kyle Hence, Michael Ruppert,
Barrie Zwicker, Indira Singh, John Judge and many others).

In late winter 2005, Walter promised that he was moving to Europe (mission
accomplished?), and subsequently announced plans for an international tour to
promote his unique views on 9/11. But before moving, he announced that had made
100,000 DVDs of his 9/11/2004 event to distribute as widely as possible (in
May 2005, that figure became 250,000 DVDs). If Walter is not working
consciously to undermine the 9/11 truth movement, then he is the patsy of the
disinformation campaign. His publicist is Ilene Proctor, whose normal
clientele consists of minor Hollywood celebrities and pop stars. One of her
clients was the lip-synching Milli Vanilli (perhaps Jimmy Walter is the political
equivalent of lip-synching?). Ms. Proctor is now distributing David Von Kleist's
comments on the March 2005 Popular Mechanics article that focused on the 9/11
hoaxes that Von Kleist promotes. It is likely that Von Kleist, the narrator
of "In Plane Site," coached Jimmy Walter on what to say and do about
9/11 issues.

May 2005 update: Walter's seclusion in Europe did not last
long. He (or his publicists) arranged a multi-nation tour of 9/11 skeptics to
speak on these issues, arranging for some very good authors and experts along
with some hoaxers pushing discredited disinformation. One of the good activists
was expelled from the tour for complaining about the presence of a writer for
one of America's most widespread neo-Nazi newspapers -- a more sensible strategy
would have been to expel the neo-Nazi newspaper from the tour, not a New York
City based activist seeking justice for the environmental damage caused to human
health by rushing to reopen Wall Street when it was not yet safe to do so.

Shortly before Walter's European tour started, reopen911.org was given a substantial
overall that massively increased the nuttiness quotient on the site -- the most
notorious is now an outrageous suggestion that the Twin Towers were blown up
with nukes. Reopen911 put these claims on its homepage just
in time for the European media to examine what is marketed as the best material
from the 9/11 truth movement in the United States.

Were the Twin Towers brought down by a Nuclear Detonation?
Hunter Thompson Killed over explosives evidence.

Mr. Walter should get an award for the most stupid
claim from someone pretending to be a 9/11 truth activist.

The truly serious matter, however, is that Walter has set about promoting
some of the most dubious and questionable claims that have emerged of late
— many of which are already denounced by a wide range of 9/11 activists
as obvious disinfo — and he has also shown himself to be reckless
and inaccurate in his handling of the evidence.

Walter is apparently just making stuff up. Or, he has been duped by someone
coaching him with bogus info. It might worthwhile to investigate which
"9/11 activists" have been working closely with him...
... How much of a fool does one have to be to MAKE GERALD POSNER LOOK GOOD?
Even worse, the fact that he is focusing so strongly on the WTC7 issue means
that this substantive and powerful part of the 9/11 skeptic's case will be
discredited by association with the faulty claims he's promoting alongside
it.
I'm willing to believe that he is a well-intentioned "eccentric",
but thus far, Jimmy Walter's newfound status as a figurehead of 9/11
skepticism is shaping up to be a disaster. Frankly, there are times when good
intentions just aren't enough, and this is one of those times.

Scholars
for Truth about 9/11

The "Scholars" group was founded in the winter of 2005 by Professors
Steven Jones and James Fetzer.

Jones is a serious, apparently sincere scholar of physics who has been examining
the claims for controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7.

The other co-founder, James Fetzer, promotes hoaxes -- no planes on 9/11,
no moon landing, no Zapruder film (JFK). One hopes hope for his sake that he
doesn't really believe those things.

Scholars For 9/11 Truth was formed by James Fetzer and Steven Jones in the
wake of a huge wave of interest in his paper Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings
Collapse? The concept of such a group is a noble one. Bringing together a
group of scholarly researchers to examine the unanswered questions surrounding
the 9/11/01 attack is an excellent way to garner credibility for the 9/11
Truth Movement. As of this writing, the group includes several individuals
notable for their expertise in fields relevant to analyzing the attack.
The website ScholarsFor911Truth.org serves as the public face of the Scholars
For 9/11 Truth group, but the website's content is not necessarily representative
of the views of the group's members. Unfortunately, even a cursory examination
of the website suggests that, instead of amplifying the excellent work of
Steven Jones and some of the group's other researchers, it promises to undermine
that work, and possibly the work of all scholars raising questions about the
official story.
Since the tragedy itself, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been plagued by both
misinformation, and by deliberate disinformation that has been injected into
the debate in order to discredit challenges to the official account. Documenting
these poison pills has not redeemed the 9/11 Truth Movement in public opinion
because few in the Movement have taken a stand, fearing that to do so would
be "divisive." One need look no further than the attack pieces by
Popular Mechanics and Scientific American to understand how flimsy, easily
debunked claims are highlighted by defenders of the official account to tar
the entire community of skeptics as loony conspiracy theorists whose conclusions
are not supported by the facts.
Despite the evidence, ScholarsFor911Truth.org has thus far failed to acknowledge
that the promotion of nonsensical claims is part of a deliberate strategy
to undermine the Truth Movement. Even worse, the website uncritically links
to many websites featuring work that is, at best, thoroughly unscientific.
....

serendipity.li

The "serendipity" site was probably the first website to
claim that the twin towers were demolished (almost immediately after 9/11),
and its hosting of a variety of quality information about covert scandals provided
considerable credibility to many seeking alternative explanations for 9/11.

But Serendipity also hosts hateful attacks on some of the hardest working
9/11 activists (see http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/fake_opposition.htm
for a particularly ugly example), and promotes the webfairy / pod hoaxes.

Their page http://www.serendipity.li/wtc_other_sites.htm purports to be a comprehensive
list of 9/11 pages, yet it is a mix of accurate information and suspect claims.
The Serendipity comments about Mike Ruppert's site blatantly misleads the reader:

This has long been regarded as one of the most perceptive sites concerning
both 9/11 and peak oil. That Ruppert supports the official lie that 9/11 was
an "Al Qaeda" operation should make one wonder.

A simple review of virtually any article at www.fromthewilderness.com quickly exposes Serendipity's claims as false. Why does "Serendipity"
promote disinformation about Ruppert's work -- it should make one wonder. Perhaps
Serendipity is trying to discourage people from reading Ruppert's book "Crossing
the Rubicon," which details Cheney's complicity in 9/11. Who benefits from
that outcome?

signs-of-the-times.org

A site specializing in fringe material, claiming to expose information about
aliens and beings living in other dimensions. While this could theoretically
be possible, it could also be a slick means to discredit more sober investigations
into actual conspiracies that have real evidence for them.

This site created the slick disinformation film "Pentagon Strike"
in the summer of 2004 -- a rock video posted on the internet that flashes
quickly from blurry image to blurry image, carefully cherry picking evidence
(and omitting crucial context) in support of the "no
plane at the Pentagon" hoax. This film, and the fact they claim
to communicate with beings in other dimensions, was used by the Washington Post
to ridicule David Ray Griffin's book "The New Pearl Harbor" about a month before the November 2004 "election." This smear
effort needed this fringe site to make Griffin's book look kooky and ridiculous,
since his book was the first 9/11 truth book to reach a somewhat mainstream
audience and most of the book is a well-written, sober analysis of the evidence
that 9/11 was allowed to happen (and given technical assistance to ensure its
success).

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/exposing_the_big_con.htm is a nasty
example of disinformation smearing Michael Ruppert that would take several pages
to refute and correct.

tomflocco.com

TomFlocco.com is a "journalism" site that has promoted a
number of good claims about 9/11 complicity and some garbage. It is aggressively
promoting "In Plane Site" and a similar film that is essentially the
same tripe in a new package:

http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/OlsenArrested.htm is an article that pretends
that Barbara Olsen, who was on the doomed Flight 77 (which hit the Pentagon)
was really arrested on the "Polish - Austrian" border. Every
verifiable piece of information in Flocco's article is provable as fake.

9-11 crash victim Barbara Olson arrested in
Europe
by Tom Flocco
Austria--September 22, 2005--TomFlocco.com--French and American intelligence
agents have arrested Barbara Olson, the wife of a former Bush administration
official, a few days ago on the Polish-Austrian border, according to agents
close to and with knowledge of the incident.

There has not been a "Polish - Austrian" border since the
Austro-Hungarian empire, which ceased to exist during World War I (the war to
end all wars). Note: Flocco's page has supposedly changed this reference to
Ms. Olson's alleged arrest on the Polish-German border. That geographic fix
is the least of the problems with this phony story.

The alleged 9.11 Pentagon crash victim was found to be in possession of
millions in fake interbank Italian lyra currency, according to the agents.

The Italian economy has used Euro currency for several years. The Italian
currency used to be called the lira, not the lyra.

Olson was also reportedly in possession of a fraudulent Vatican passport
and was held on charges of counterfeiting.
Barbara K. Olson
The former Fox News TV commentator and Independent Women's Forum activist
was said to have called her husband Theodore Olson from her plane to seek
help in countering hijackers who had allegedly taken over American flight
77 which the Bush administration said was crashed into the Pentagon - although
the impact only left an opening approximately 16 feet across.

In reality, the hole in the Pentagon was about 90 feet wide, and the full impact zone was at least 141 feet across.

Ted Olson is the former Bush 43 Solicitor General who had previously argued
the President's legal interests in the controversial Bush-Gore 2000 election
recount case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Theodore (Ted) B. Olson
Mrs. Olson's alleged cell phone call to her husband was employed by the administration
and the 9.11 Commission as partial proof that American 77 crashed into the
Pentagon, despite physical evidence to the contrary.
The Pentagon crash evidence was ignored and obstructed by both the Commission
and previously by the Joint Congressional Intelligence Committee in its own
separate probe.
Due to the ongoing sensitive nature of the arrest, investigation and questioning,
one source who declined to be named for this story, told TomFlocco.com that
Olson's call to her husband was a fraud and that another projectile impacted
the Pentagon other than Olson's plane.
The agents were said to have closed in to arrest the former television pundit
because the evidence of counterfeiting and passport violations was obvious
and that the timing was right.
According to the agents, Barbara Olson is reportedly considered to be a conspirator
to the obstruction of justice in the mass murders of 3,000 individuals on
September 11, 2001 in the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon
and the alleged crash in southwestern Pennsylvania.
Olson's arrest and potential appearance at trial in the United States would
undoubtedly have a profound impact upon current "Able Danger" hearings
in the Senate and past probes by both the Joint Congressional Intelligence
Committee and the 9.11 Commission.

wanttoknow.info

The website wanttoknow.info, published by former State Dept interpreter turned
internet political activist Fred Burks, considered The Washington Post’s
review of New Pearl Harbor to be a great breakthrough, not a discrediting attack.

A month before the 2004 election, The Washington Post published a review that
focused exclusively on the “no plane hit the Pentagon” claims and
ignored the other 90% of the book. The review put the mention of Griffin’s
book in the middle of a discussion of the creators of the “Pentagon Strike”
hoax film, highlighting their claim that they talk to alien beings living in
other dimensions from their European palace (thus ensuring that “9/11
truth” would be considered lunacy). Limiting the discussion of 9/11 complicity
to whether a plane hit the Pentagon ensured that this would not become a political
issue in the Washington area during the final weeks of the campaign.

Unfortunately, not all publicity is good publicity. The corporate media wants the public to know that there are people who think 9/11 was an inside job
-- as long as the claims contain poison pills that can be used to alienate and
discredit.

Wanttoknow promotes the Pentagon Strike hoax film www.wanttoknow.info/powerofnightmares,
and is among the 9/11 “truth” websites that bought into the “no
plane” hoax and now is unable to admit having made a mistake.

Wanttoknow also promotes Rense, What Really Happened and Arctic Bulletin,
websites that promote poison pill claims about 9/11 www.wanttoknow.info/conspiracytheories Rense pushes the “abiotic oil” hoax and has praised Holocaust denier
Ernst Zundel (What Really Happened also has promoted Zundel). Arctic Bulletin
aggressively promotes “no planes” and writes for American Free Press,
a long time promoter of Holocaust Denial that works with KKK leader David Duke.

Some left wing groups explicitly refuse to address 9/11 complicity because
they have figured out that some of the claims are traceable back to neo-Nazis.

April 3, 2006 -- Want to Know promotes Thierry Meyssan's hoax book
(again), years after it was exposed as a mix of real and fake claims that discredit
serious investigation.
"Horrifying Fraud" was Meyssan's first book claiming a plane didn't
hit the Pentagon (Monsieur Meyssan publicly claimed that a truck bomb was used,
which is absurd - especially since hundreds of commuters and bystanders saw
the plane as it swooped around Arlington County to zero in on the nearly
empty part of the Pentagon). His sequel "Pentagate" is the book
that has a photo of Boeing parts on the front cover, a
bad joke hidden in plain sight.
Want to Know is promoting the film "Loose Change,"
a slick mix of real evidence and absurd nonsense claims that is a recycling
of the discredited hoax film In Plane Site (the main difference is Loose Change is about half true and half fake, while
In Plane Site was about 90% fake).

This message is available online at http://www.WantToKnow.info/060403newsarticles

French buy into 9/11 conspiracy
June 26, 2002, CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/06/26/france.book
Throughout the spring, and into this summer, a leading bestseller in France
has not been some great work of French literature but a $17-dollar paperback
called the "Horrifying Fraud." The book casts doubt on the official
version of the events of September 11, substituting an elaborate conspiracy
concocted by America's military-industrial complex in order to increase U.S.
military budgets. It has sold more than 200,000 copies here. Thierry Meyssan,
author of "The Horrifying Fraud"...insists, among other things,
that it was not a hijacked American Airlines 757 that crashed into the Pentagon
on 9/11 but a missile fired by the military itself. Meyssan said: "The
official version is incomplete and on certain points is wrong. In addition
to selling hundreds of thousands of copies of his first book, Meyssan's follow-up
sold 15,000 copies two days after launch and is now number seven on one bestseller
list.

Note: Though this article is almost four years old, I only recently received
the above link to the article on the CNN website from a supporter. If you
want to be educated on this extremely important topic, I cannot recommend
highly enough the Google video "Loose Change,"
which is filled with verifiable information on 9/11 at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848.
I urge to watch even just the first 10 or 15 minutes of this highly educational
documentary. By educating ourselves, we can work more effectively to build
a build a better world.

thewebfairy.com

the most absurd claim: 9/11 was supposedly done with missiles masked
by King Kong sized holograms, not planes

Perhaps the single most bizarre 9/11 website, it claims that
a plane did not hit the north tower of the World Trade Center. Instead, the
"webfairy" theorizes that King Kong sized holograms were used to fool
bystanders, and missiles were fired at the towers. The fact that the hole in
the side of the North Tower is the same size as the cross section of a 767 and
even shows the impact of the wings is irrelevant to this incredibly paranoid
site.

The "hologram" theory was probably created after the "no plane
hit Pentagon" hoax became popular, but the hologram theory never received
much of an audience.

The fairy godmother of this modus operandi is an internet persona called "webfairy,"
aka Rosalee Grable, a grandmother in Chicago who has learned how to do sophisticated
video analysis and hosts a website that hosts lots of video clips of the 9/11
attacks. Webfairy has spent years creating "new footage" of the 9/11
attacks.

Webfairy, Letsroll911 and In Plane
Site

At the very least, the Webfairy and Letsroll sites are closely allied. Some
spam (unsolicited emails) from the pod theorists has stated that the webfairy
has done photographic work for the letsroll site. Letsroll hosts webfairy's
video work on their website. And the "In Plane
Site" pod promotion film directs viewers to look at the Letsroll website,
not the credible investigations based on verifiable evidence and logic.

Questions Questions debunks the "webfairy"

New at questionsquestions.net: an analysis by Eric Salter, refuting several
widely-circulated claims about the WTC airliner impacts on 9/11. These include
the claims that original video recordings of the impacts were fabricated or
altered using computer graphics, that aircraft other than 767s struck the the
towers, and even that no planes hit the two towers, the planes supposedly being
replaced by super high-tech "holographic" illusions [!]. The
analysis shows that these claims, which unfortunately have been lingering around
for some time, have no solid basis in the evidence -- video, photographic, or
otherwise -- nor any solid basis in logic, and could help to discredit the 9/11
Truth Movement.
The WTC Impacts: 767s or "Whatzits"?www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html

Additionally, we already know that the hole in the north tower is the size
of a 767. Here is a frontal diagram of a 767 superimposed in scale
over the tower (WTC width = 207 ft., 767 wingspan = 156 ft.) and rotated to align with the impact hole. Quite a good fit:

.... When mainstream skeptics dismiss conspiracy
theorists as crackpots who see things that aren't there, this is the kind
of stuff they point to: http://thewebfairy.com/whatzit/

.... Even setting all the technical issues aside, the no-plane analysis
simply defies common sense. There were thousands of people on the
ground and on rooftops, and none after the fact have complained that what
is replayed on TV is not what they saw. In the age of the internet, we should
have heard volumes about this if the planes on TV were not the planes in real
life. It would be very simple for an ordinary person to write an email to
a 9/11 investigator saying "that's not what I saw," or even to write
their own online articles about it. New York produced half a million anti-war
marchers, including many 9/11 Truth activists, but we're supposed to believe
that after more than two years, NONE of the eyewitnesses would have taken
the opportunity to speak out over this? The whole of New York must be in on
the conspiracy!Are we also to believe that the planners of 9/11 would fly an incongruous
small plane into a city whose attention was riveted on the WTC, and which
is always swarming with camera-toting tourists to begin with? One
good image would have brought the official story down and the 'War on Terror'
with it. What would the planners have to gain by rolling the dice on such
elaborate high-tech trickery, when crashing airliners into the WTC towers
was very probably the simplest and most easily executed part of the whole
operation? It would be an example of infinite risk for no gain. Moreover,
since there is no substantive and compelling reason to believe that a 767
did not hit the South tower, by analogy there is also no logical reason to
suspect anything different concerning the preceding North tower impact, even
though it is comparatively poorly documented.
I'm alarmed at the current situation. .... large portions of the 9/11
truth movement stand to be tainted through this association. The debunkers
would approach it like this: "Within the community of 9/11 conspiracy
theorists, broad support is given to a man that believes that no 767s hit
the World Trade Center." Guilt by association may not be an honorable
debating tactic, but the other side is anything but honorable. The
anti-conspiracy article in the May 2004 issue of Vanity Fair ("Welcome
to the Conspiracy") uses Paul Joseph Watson's analysis of the first hit
at the WTC to illustrate how absurd 9/11 conspiracy theories are. Though Watson
doesn't go as far as the no-planers, his claims about multiple missile firings
and the different sizes of the plane and the hole are erroneous enough to
give the debunkers plenty of ammunition. It goes to show how risky this kind
of speculation can be. The WTC no-plane theories are a danger to the
9/11 truth movement and should be vigorously rejected.

.... Mature, conscientious and responsible individuals place truth
before their egos, feel regret when they make mistakes, and place importance
on treating their collegues fairly. Webfairy and Scott Loughrey fail
on all these counts. Their rebuttals were far more erroneous and absurd than
anything I outlined in the original article, which is saying a lot. Their
strategy of willfully denying even the most obvious facts is immature and
well below the minimum level of intellectual debate that the 9/11 truth movement
should expect from everyone involved.
Webfairy has repeatedly charged that I and others who oppose her ideas are
disinformation agents. I have tried to stick to the facts and avoid venturing
into this issue. My opinion all along is that the no-plane theories
are a threat to the 9/11 truth movement simply because they are completely
unproven, crackpot notions. I have never concluded that the no-planers
were agents.I will say, however, that Webfairy's
approach in particular mimics typical COINTELPRO tactics, which are to poison the atmosphere in activist circles by being antagonistic
and making divisive and paranoid accusations and to introduce ridiculous ideas
that discredit the movement in the eyes of the public.

[Afterword, from QQ Editor: The feedback from the previous article on the
WTC no-plane theories has been overwhelmingly positive, including thanks from
other researchers who didn't have the knowledge of video to take on the crackpot
no-plane theories. I'm glad that we could fill the gap. A couple readers expressed
some concern that the original article was perhaps too harsh, risking putting
a chill on open-minded discussion of forensics and physical evidence subjects
within the 9/11 Truth Movement. I think that these new responses from Webfairy
and Scott Loughrey show plainly that there was nothing gratuitious or unfair
in the character of Eric's original critique (I would note that in addition
to what is quoted here, Webfairy has continued to mock her critics as "teletubbies"
and "plane huggers"), and I hope it remains clear that the position
of QQ is strongly supportive of any such inquiries which meet reasonable standards
(my first choice in this area is the highly anomalous collapse of WTC 7).
Moreover, I have to note that I and a number of others have been patiently
debating Webfairy and other no-plane theorists on and off for more than a
year and a half [!] using many of the same type of arguments that Eric has
now elaborated and strengthened with much more professional expertise. We
found long ago that this was an exercise in futility, every carefully and
fairly reasoned argument being dismissed with the same kind of haughty, sloppy
ridicule that is exhibited above, over and over again. Barring the
unexpected emergence of some truly extraordinary new level of evidence along
with expert supporting analysis, it is long overdue for the WTC no-plane theories
to be put to bed. Period. Neither Eric nor I can in principle state
this opinion in any softer terms, especially in light of the paranoid and
mean-spirited rug chewing offered by Webfairy and Loughrey in lieu of any
coherent rebuttals.

Wing
TV

A shoddy effort to discredit Michael Ruppert's work while
ignoring the information in "Crossing the Rubicon"

The pseudonymous author of "Wing TV"
is also the author of a self-published book called "Christ Killers."

Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:54:20 -0800
(PST)
From: "Victoria Ashley"
To: "911truthalliance"
Subject: [911truthalliance] WING TV - why another attack piece?
I was dissapointed recently to see that Wing TV's Victor Thorn wrote up and
posted another attack piece like what was done to Mike Ruppert, only much
smaller (1 page, not over 30) and this time, on WTC7.net webmaster Jim Hoffman.
Why? Because Jim has changed his position on the Pentagon. He went back and
looked at the eye witness testimony carefully, which he had never really done,
and decided that so many eye witnesses reporting the same thing, just might
have a point. But for this is now treated to public attacks.
What's with Thorn's attacking of people?
If someone disagrees with a theory, why not debate it, rather than try to
degrade someone? Does this help the movement at all? To attack researchers
publically when you have never even debated an issue with them?
Thorn writes about Jim with these phrases:

Mike Ruppert is unquestionably a great
American hero. His book, Crossing the Rubicon, is the single most important
book written in the last fifty years at least. The Patriot Act, Homeland Security
and the lies about WMDs in Iraq have created a growing sense of unease in
the collective unconscious. As a result, a growing number of intellectuals
and every day citizens are begining to see the Truth and more and more people
are begining to wake up every day. Crossing the Rubicon is at the forefront
of this new awareness. Most reviewers here have already done a great job summarizing
the content of Mike's book. The many five star reviews are well deserved.
I want to write a note about the campaign to discredit Mike Ruppert and his
book, a campaign which has apparently begun full blast. Another reviewer has
already correctly noted how the few one-star reviews on this site follow the
standard rules of organized disinformation campaigns. Through the
use of innuendo, character assasination, and classic misdirection, several
reviewers make it appear that the book rests its case on a handful of issues,
such as the Vreeland case. In fact, all 696 pages are saturated with enough
well documented and diverse evidence to prove the 911 criminal conspiracy
many times over while adhering to the highest possible journalistic standards.
Mike makes a case that could actually hold up in a court of law, whereas the
establishment case for 911 could not even hold up in a high school debate. Quite a pathetic comment on the state of our society but I digress.
The most comically pathetic aspect of the disinformation campaign is a new
"conspiracy website TV show" which proceeds to slam Ruppert in a
laughable thirty-minute video. They make such shocking claims that Ruppert
is "rude...impolite...a liar, blah, blah, blah" without offering
anything substantive to back up their "claims". Anyone with even
a degree of clear perception can clearly see that these people are either
operatives with very poor acting skills or low grade actors hired by operatives.
The lack of sincerity in their eyes, their nervous body language and laughable
"faux-left-wing" wardrobe and demeanor betray an obvious Wag the
Dog operation. A little research into their website and published books indicate
that the entire operation has been slapped together in the last few months,
no doubt to coincide with the publication of Crossing the Rubicon. This type
of thing might fool the sheeple who think CNN is their friend. But those of
us who have already seen the underbelly of the Propaganda Beast can only shake
our heads in sad amusement. What a joke. Ruppert is wise to simply briefly
address their libel on his own site but otherwise ignore them.
As Crossing the Rubicon gains ground, one can only imagine what new
lows the disinformation campaign will hit. What's next? Websites that scream:
Mike Ruppert Married Satan and Gave Birth to a Pink Alien Octopus who Molested
your Mother!! Don't TRUST HIM!!
Hang in there Mr. Ruppert. Heroes are rarely recognized in their own time.
You may or may not get the adulation you deserve in this lifetime but your
work will help many people survive the coming storm.
Generations will owe you.